Tag: law

Immigrants to the US

My great-grandparents on my father’s side came to the United States fleeing hunger and political repression. My grandparents on my mother’s side came to the United States for safety as war threatened. Though some at the time decried them for being Irish or Italian and said they didn’t belong here, they found work and safety, raised families, contributed to their communities, and became citizens. My family has members with ancestral roots in Africa, Asia, the Pacific Islands, other European countries, and Canada. My town has people who came from or are descendants of people from around the world, as well as indigenous people. Some have been here for generations; some arrived recently.

We all belong here.

I am appalled at the recent rhetoric from Donald Trump and others of his ilk that migrants “poison the blood of our country.” I believe every person has inherent dignity. Our blood is a life force we hold in common. If you need a transfusion, it’s only the blood type – O, A, B, AB, Rh – or + – that matters, not the race, ethnicity, gender, wealth, or any other attribute of the donor.

My ancestors made their way here without much in the way of financial resources. Some didn’t speak much English. Despite their pale skin, some were not classified as White by the society at the time. They were fleeing hunger, poverty, political upheaval, danger, and violence, the same kinds of things that are now forcing thousands upon thousands from around the world to flee to the United States. Additionally, some of today’s migrants are fleeing due to climate change, for example, because of crop failures, damage from global-warming-enhanced weather systems, desertification, or sea level rise.

These new migrants have a right under United States and international law to seek asylum and a new life here. Yes, it would be safer for them to apply for asylum or visas in the US from their home countries but US immigration policy and infrastructure is decades out of date, which is certainly not the fault of the migrants. Many people who say, “Yes, but I/my ancestors came here legally,” need to realize that it was their country of origin/timeframe that made that possible in a way that is not available to many of the mostly black and brown folks now trying to cross the US southern border, some of whom originate from continents outside the Americas.

They also need to realize that it has been Congressional Republicans who have blocked meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform. For example, the immigration bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would most likely have passed the House on a bipartisan basis but the Republican House leadership wouldn’t put it up for a vote because the majority of the Republican members would have voted against it. Another example, the first bill that President Biden proposed to Congress was a comprehensive immigration reform bill, but it has not even been brought up for debate.

We have appalling actions by some governors, such as Abbott in Texas and DeSantis in Florida, that demonize and further endanger already vulnerable migrants. (Newsflash: People seeking asylum are not “illegal.” They have legal status under national and international law. And, no, states may not set their own immigration policy.) There are chilling promises of detention camps and mass deportations from some in Trump’s camp, were he ever to regain the presidency.

While comprehensive immigration reform will need to wait for a future Congress, the present Congress could take action to help alleviate the current problems. They could allocate funds for more processing centers and immigration judges to assist new migrants and those who are currently awaiting hearings in the coming months/years. They could give additional aid to communities and programs for resettling immigrants. My county has a long history of welcoming immigrants and there are existing organizations that can help people get re-settled.

Most importantly, they could make provisions to get work visas to newcomers and to immigrants who are already in the United States. Unemployment rates in the United States are low and there are a lot of jobs that aren’t being filled. Some of the sectors that need workers are agriculture, hospitality, caregiving, and construction. Many migrants have those skills and are eager to work to support themselves and their families. It’s a win-win situation.

At the same time, there are many unscrupulous employers who have been hiring workers without documents, often at substandard wages and without proper workplace protections. This needs to stop! The workers should be given work visas and the employers should pay fines and be brought into compliance for wages and working conditions. If they were complicit in human trafficking, they should be held responsible for that, as should anyone else involved.

Another threat from the Trump camp is to end birthright citizenship. Under the United States Constitution, anyone born in the United States is automatically granted citizenship. Period. The only way to change it would be to amend the Constitution, which would take a two-thirds vote from both chambers of Congress followed by ratification of three-quarters of the states. No executive order or even a Congressional law can change birthright citizenship because it would be unconstitutional.

One of the strengths of the United States is that it becomes home to people from all over the world and their descendants. In our communities, we share the food and cultural traditions that traveled with us or our ancestors and are free to do so, enriching all who participate. The United States has always been a diverse country, although it’s taken a long time to grant equal rights and that process is still ongoing. We must not turn our back on new arrivals who want to join us. They have gifts to share with us and we have gifts to share with them.

*****
Join us for Linda’s Just Jot It January! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2024/01/04/daily-prompt-jusjojan-the-4th-2024/

New Poem: On August 24, 2023

For some reason I cannot ascertain, I’ve been having poetic responses spring to mind from current events lately. After having them rejected by the venues that I know that concentrate on current event poems, I am publishing them here at Top of JC’s Mind, as I did last week with my Georgia RICO indictment poem.

This one is much shorter, almost but not quite a haiku. (Syllable counting is difficult when you use numbers.) It is a response to Donald Trump surrendering to authorities at the Fulton County, Georgia jail and then raising money using his scowling mug shot, which I’ve already seen more times than I care to.

As always, comments are welcome.

On August 24, 2023

Inmate P01135809 
says “NEVER SURRENDER!” 
but he does.

One-Liner Wednesday: another indictment

Sadly continuing with a recent practice, here is a link to the most recent, devastating, sprawling indictment of Donald Trump, this time under the state of Georgia’s RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) law around interference in the 2020 election.
*****
Please join us for Linda’s One-Liner Wednesdays. Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/08/16/one-liner-wednesday-that-feeling-when/

SoCS: I Like It Here

When I read Linda’s prompt yesterday, I immediately thought of the song “I Like It Here.” I did search for the lyrics and to find the writer; I did find some similar versions to what I remember but it seems that no one knows who wrote it. I’m going to use the version from my childhood as I remember it in this post.

My sisters and I used to put on little performances in our basement for a very small audience, my parents and perhaps my grandparents or Harriet and Pres, family friends who were like an honorary aunt and uncle. We would sing and act out songs we learned in school.

One I especially remember is “I Like It Here,” a patriotic number that we used to close the show, at least once that I recall.

“I like the United States of America.
I like the way we all live without fear.”

In my childhood, living without fear was pretty much a thing I could do, in my tiny, rural New England town. Today, though, there are many fears that are with us all the time – environmental destruction and climate change, gun violence, the troubling rise of authoritarianism, public displays of hate against any number of different groups of people.

“I like to vote for my choice,
speak my mind, raise my voice.
Yes, I like it here.”

Unfortunately, there are lots of laws in some states that are trying to suppress votes and to silence free speech. It’s discouraging. I appreciate the lawyers and organizations that are challenging these laws.

“I am so lucky to be in America
and I am thankful each day of the year,
for I can do as I please
’cause I’m free as the breeze.
Yes, I like it here.”

While I am happy to be here in the place that is home, the threats to our freedoms are real. We are fighting to keep them but the recent trials of insurrectionists are a stark reminder of how much danger we were in and how much of that animus still remains, even within some in government service.

“I’d like to climb to the top of a mountain so high,
raise my head to the sky,
and say how grateful am I,
for the way that I’m living
and working and giving
and helping the land I hold dear.
Yes, I like it,
I like it,
I like it here!”

I have felt that, in my small way, I’ve added to life in the United States. For most of my life, I never thought that I would leave it to live in another, but the presidency of DT made me wonder if things would be so changed that I could no longer live here.

I feel horrible for even thinking of abandoning my country and the Biden presidency gives me hope but the bizarre spectacle the once-proud Republican party has become and the staggering level of corruption that has been uncovered are a constant source of worry.

I’m trying to do my part as a citizen to get us back toward the freedom and equality to which we are called by our Constitution and laws. Millions of others are as well, including many who have more power and ability to be effective than I do.

Will it be enough?

I don’t know.
*****
Linda’s prompt for Stream of Consciousness Saturday is to think of a song from your childhood and write. Join us! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/05/05/the-friday-reminder-and-prompt-for-socs-may-6-2023/

the aftermath of Dobbs

When I wrote this post after the leak of US Supreme Court Justice Alito’s draft opinion on an abortion law in Mississippi, we weren’t sure if there would be changes before the decision was announced.

When the decision was announced on June 24, it was little changed from the draft. The majority signed on to the opinion that Roe v. Wade had been “wrongly decided” and threw the matter of the legality of abortion to each state’s legislature.

It’s not that long-standing Supreme Court precedents have never been overturned or declared “wrongly decided” – the Dred Scott decision springs to mind – but the Dobbs case was the first time that such a reversal came at the expense of a recognized right.

Many lawyers and Constitutional scholars have faulted the majority’s decision on historical and legal grounds, as Alito seems to cherry-pick sources in support of his view while ignoring the mainstream history and scholarship to the contrary. For example, while it is true that the Constitution does not specify a right to an abortion, it also never uses the word “woman” or “family.” There are many rights that have been recognized by the courts over the centuries that are not specifically cited in the Constitution under the Ninth Amendment which states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The right to privacy and to bodily autonomy belong to each person and should not be under the jurisdiction of the government at any level. The Alito opinion also seems to violate the Thirteenth Amendment against involuntary servitude and the Fourteenth Amendment which promises “equal protection of the laws.”

While Alito said that abortion was a unique situation in terms of privacy protections, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence that openly questions other rulings, such as those allowing contraception and marriage equality in all states. Somehow, he didn’t suggest that the Loving case, which forced all states to allow interracial marriage, had been wrongly decided, one assumes because he is a partner in one.

It’s now a little less than a month since the decision was handed down and there is upheaval. There have been many protests and public demonstrations. Some states moved to ban all abortions or all after six weeks of pregnancy. Some states are even trying to prevent people from crossing state lines to receive care, as though being a resident of a state gave them ownership over you. While the House has passed legislation to codify abortion rights similarly to Roe and to allow interstate travel for medical care, the Senate Republicans have blocked both measures from coming to a vote.

Some states are protecting and codifying the Roe framework. My home state, New York, had done this previously and is now beginning the years-long process to amend the equal rights protections of the state constitution to include “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care and autonomy”. Bonus: this will protect marriage rights and stand against all gender-related discrimination, as well as returning reproductive health rights to each individual.

Before the decision was handed down, those of us warning of the dangers to the health and well-being of pregnant people were scolded for being alarmist, but we were being realistic. Every day, there are stories in the news of delayed care for miscarriages that threatens the health and life of the mother. There are stories of rape victims having to go to another state for an abortion. The most heart-breaking of these is the case of a ten-year-old rape victim who had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to receive an abortion at six and a half weeks pregnancy. This child has had to endure not only rape and the severe threat to her health that pregnancy at such a young age entails but also the trauma of some politicians and commentators questioning the veracity of her story.

These cases show the dangers of trying to legislate what should be private medical decisions. While some are contending that it’s not really an abortion if a child is pregnant and her life is endangered or if there is an ectopic pregnancy or if there is an incomplete miscarriage, medically speaking, all pregnancies end either in live birth or an abortion. Miscarriage is not a medical term; on medical records, it is termed a spontaneous abortion. Health care providers are being put in the impossible situation to provide the best care to their patients or to be forced by lawyers to wait until their patients are clearly dying themselves before intervening to remove a doomed fetus. When the federal government reminded hospital emergency rooms that they are required to treat any endangered pregnant person to save their life, the state of Texas filed suit, saying that their state law against abortion should take precedence.

Some states are making moves not only against abortion but also against contraceptives, even though these are not abortifacient. They are trying to prevent people from crossing state lines to receive care. As I mentioned previously, while the US House of Representatives has passed legislation to codify abortion rights and to affirm the right to interstate travel, the Senate is not taking these up because of obstruction by Republicans. Chillingly, there is talk of the Republicans passing a national abortion ban if they regain the Congressional majority. Meanwhile, Republicans fail to pass legislation that would uphold the health and dignity of each person, such as universal health care, living wages, social welfare support, etc.

As a Catholic woman, I knew this was coming. Alito was parroting the arguments that Catholic bishops have made against abortion and Thomas went even further down that road in his calls against contraception. I have struggled for years against a church that denies my full personhood as a woman, despite their lip service to the concept of human dignity. I did not expect my country to follow suit.

Like most women my age, I didn’t think we would still be fighting these kinds of equality battles, but we will. I can’t predict the manner or timing of victory, but we will not be demoted to second class citizenship by a skewed Supreme Court.

One-Liner Wednesday: MLK quote

It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless.

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Join us for Linda’s Just Jot It January and/or One-Liner Wednesdays! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2022/01/19/one-liner-wednesday-jusjojan-the-19th-2022-voice-to-text/

federal force

Here in the United States, we are facing such a crush of problems that it is hard to give each the attention it deserves.

I do want to highlight one especially dangerous and disturbing action by the president. He is deploying federal employees into US cities to act as law enforcement without the permission of the mayors and governors who have legal jurisdiction. By law, policing is a matter for local and state governments. The National Guard, which is a branch of the US Military though its roots go all the way back to 1660’s Massachusetts militias, is sometimes mobilized to deal with a disaster or civil unrest, but it is the governor of the state who usually orders it, not the president. As I have discussed before, the president can use the Insurrection Act to use federal forces over the objections of governors, but there is no basis to declare that an insurrection is underway.

Federal forces have been deployed to Portland, Oregon, ostensibly to protect federal buildings. Disturbingly, these federal officers have been on the streets without wearing insignia identifying them and have detained people who are not causing harm. They have also teargassed peaceful protestors. According to local officials, the presence of these federal forces has worsened the situation, not calmed it. The president is also sending or planning to send federal agents to other US cities.

While the president says he needs to establish “law and order” in these Democrat-led cities, the real motivation may be to project a “tough guy” image to shore up his base of supporters. His poll numbers have been dropping, even in states where he won by large margins in 2016.

I think it is possible that some of the president’s supporters are disturbed that he is using federal forces within US cities. The tenth amendment to the Constitution recognizes policing as a state function; many Trump supporters are not fans of the federal government and prefer state/local control as much as possible. Some would rather not have government involved in their lives at all.

There are already inspectors general investigations into the use of federal forces in Washington, DC and Portland. If there are deployments in other cities, there will surely be court cases brought, as well.

Meanwhile, voters need to remember that unidentified, armed federal personnel do not belong on the streets in US cities and towns. It’s the kind of authoritarian tactic that the United States has often decried in other countries.

One-Liner Wednesday: Presidents

“Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings. This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.”
~~~ U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in her 120-page opinion that former White House Counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a Congressional subpoena
*****
Join us for Linda’s One-Liner Wednesday! Find out how here:  https://lindaghill.com/2019/11/27/one-liner-wednesday-im-gonna-make-it/

Badge by Laura @ riddlefromthemiddle.com

uncharted territory

I can’t even count how many times during the Trump campaign and presidency I have heard historians, policy experts, and commentators say that we are in “uncharted territory.” It’s bewildering as each new scandal breaks, only to be swallowed up by the next one.

The story that has been breaking over the last few days is that a whistleblower from the intelligence community went to the inspector general with an issue of concern. The inspector general found the issue credible and urgent and, as statute dictates, told the (acting) Secretary of Homeland Security who was supposed to send the information on to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, who have oversight duties. Instead, he brought the concern to the executive branch, in this case to the White House and the Department of Justice. He is now refusing to pass the information on to the committees because the person under question is not part of the intelligence community, even though the  statute is clear that the information must be handed over regardless of who is the subject.

Partial information about the case has been sussed out by the press. Apparently, the whistleblower was alarmed by a pattern of behavior by the president toward Ukraine. Part of the problem seems to be that Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch an investigation of former vice-president Joe Biden and his son; Joe Biden is one of the top tier Democratic contenders vying to run against Trump for the presidency in 2020. Trump now admits discussing the matter with the president of Ukraine, although he says he didn’t “pressure” him. If, however, the allegation is true that DT did pressure the Ukrainian president, he could be investigated for extortion, campaign finance violations, and courting foreign influence in a US election. He could also be charged with obstruction for not turning over evidence in a Congressional investigation.

And this new issue is on top of the possible obstruction of justice acts described in the second half of the Mueller report.

And the emoluments case wending its way through the courts and under investigation by the House.

And keeping members of his cabinet and staff, present and former, from cooperating with document requests and testimony, which is also obstruction.

And he hasn’t turned over tax returns for himself and his businesses, despite valid Congressional requests and New York state court subpoenas.

This is not a complete list.

The level of corruption is staggering.

What is needed at this point is for Congressional Republicans to step up and hold the president accountable for his actions. It is their duty to uphold the laws of the United States. So far, almost no Republicans have supported Congressional investigation which could lead to impeachment and removal from office. You can be sure that if a Democratic president had engaged in any of the actions that Trump appears to have taken, the Republicans would have investigated and impeached him/her long ago. During the 2016 campaign, there were Republicans saying that they would file articles of impeachment immediately after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as president, although it isn’t clear what grounds they thought they had. That Congressional Republicans are failing to hold Trump accountable only because he is a Republican is unconscionable and un-American.

What happens next? Who knows?

We are in uncharted territory.

marriage, family, and immigration

Millions and millions of people watched press coverage of the recent wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Meghan, a United States citizen by birth, is now the Duchess of Sussex.

I am very happy for them as they begin their married life in the United Kingdom, but I am sad that British immigration law makes it so much more difficult for other non-citizen spouses to join their British counterparts. The complex immigration laws of the United Kingdom and the United States, both currently in flux under their current governments, are conspiring to keep ABC, my dual-citizen granddaughter, from being with both her parents for the majority of her first two years. She is always very excited to video-visit with her daddy when she is in residence with us and her mom here in the States, but it is, of course, not the same as being there in person.

Still, at least they can see each other and have access to a process that will enable them to be together long-term, unlike the families seeking asylum in the United States who are being subjected to new procedures by the Trump administration. Children as young as one year are being separated from their parent(s) and put into foster care. Unconscionably, some of the parents are being charged with human trafficking of their own children.  Such treatment of asylum seekers is both immoral and illegal under international law. I’m hoping that legal challenges filed on behalf of these families will find justice among federal judges, even though it is the Justice Department in Washington that has implemented these new draconian policies.

Update June 1:  This post gives more information and ways to speak out in defense of children and parents.